President Trump carries through with America First immigration policy


It has repeatedly. It’s part of the original discussion. AS and I both agree that the proposed limitation is a good idea. We agree that prohibiting the criminal, terrorist and insane is wise.

We do not agree that prohibiting the poor and uneducated is wise or appropriate. We do not agree with allowing them to come here and collect welfare. Again, we agree with prohibiting welfare payments for them as suggested. I’d agree with that to a longer term even. Nearly every argument against allowing the poor and uneducated into our nation in this thread has been predicated on the idea that they would collect welfare. Another one was worry about wages, but for conservative capitalists to start arguing about protecting wages is an entirely different discussion that will separate capitalists from socialists.

We do not agree that culture is grounds for barring legal entry. Every argument about culture in this thread has been about fear of terrorists and criminals, which we can and should eliminate to the best of our ability. We can never expect 100-percent safety, but then I think that’s what our society expects these days on the left and the right.

AS and I both agree substantially with this proposal, but we both find the suggested limitations based on education, wealth and culture to be appalling.


Point me to it, please, when the system is restored. Thank you :slight_smile:


Then what in the world are you talking about and worried about?

Oh, that’s how I multi-quote. Cool.

So, yes, that’s how economies work. Prices signal where resources are needed. High labor prices in the case of North Dakota signal demand for labor – as opposed to Seattle wages and cost of living. People move there, fill the demand, drive down labor prices then stop moving there. Then some have to move elsewhere as labor prices dip too low. Limiting movement to North Dakota would keep those prices high, but it also means that resources are not extracted at an equilibrium level based on supply and demand. Its economy would be dysfunctional.

The United States is still not impoverished and has many opportunities for the poor and uneducated who are not seeking a welfare check. Since I accept entirely the notion in the OP that these immigrants should be ineligible for welfare benefits for five years (I accept a longer timeframe), what’s the objection?


The objection is that neither the government NOR illegals (or legals, for that matter) agree with you, and millions ARE “immigrating” in order to get on OUR dole as opposed to the ones they’re fleeing.


And the counter objection, is

  1. Pointing how most are STILL coming here for economic activity, not benefits, which is made self-evident by how immigration waxes & wanes with economic cycles. (Go look at the chart above Dave)

  2. That the GDP contribution of all immigration is far in excess to what they take in benefits.

  3. That Subsides, of any sort, do not give “magically” give you the knowledge of how much labor the market needs.

It is this last part that is especially egregious for anyone who claims to understand Free Market thinking.

The knowledge no one has. You cannot centralize needs of the economy. You do not know which labor markets are in surplus, and which are in shortages in real time.

Pointing to a 90 million outside-the-workforce figure ( of whom over 40 million are above the age of 60, and were never going to do farm or other labor intensive work anyway), does not say anything about which markets still need labor.

For all you know Dave, the remaining 50 million are held up in cities, and are refusing to move out to the rural places that need the labor.

Which means when you’re blocking labor from coming here, all you’re doing is making those rural places suffer shortages needlessly. Which leads to us, among other things, importing food.

You refuse to observe how the Economy actually allocates labor. You make assumptions rather than observations, you assume that because unemployment exists, that the market doesn’t need more labor. Observing markets would tell one that we do not have one, uniform labor market, and that shortages and unemployment can happen simultaneously.

That’s why the 90 million figure doesn’t matter. Allocation is what matters, to every labor market across the country. Not just the ones you “happen” to pay attention to.


Nothing I posted attempted to “sidestep the truth”. On the other hand, you do sidestep historical facts concerning immigration during the early 1900s. One of the primary facts you sidestep is, foreigners who were though would become a public burden were not welcomed in the country.

During the past 20-25 years, millions of poverty stricken, poorly educated, low and unskilled foreigners have been allowed into our country without any assurance they would not become a public burden, and the negative consequences of allowing this to happen have been felt by American citizens. And what is it that you continue to sidestep?

Immigrants were subject to physical and mental exams to ensure they were fit for admittance to the nited States.

”Upon arrival at Ellis Island, immigrants were ushered into a room called the Great Hall and paraded before a series of medical officers for physical inspection. Most were allowed to pass by in a matter of seconds, but those whom the doctors deemed physically or mentally deficient were marked with chalk and taken away for additional screening. Questionable candidates were forced to submit to more detailed questioning and medical exams, and any signs of contagious disease, poor physique, feeblemindedness or insanity could see an immigrant denied admittance on the grounds that they were likely to become a ward of the state. In later years, doctors at Ellis Island even devised puzzles and memory tests to ensure that certain immigrants were intelligent enough to find work. New arrivals could also face rejection if they were anarchists, had a criminal record or showed signs of low moral character. Despite the litany of guidelines for new immigrants, the number of people denied entry at Ellis Island was quite low. Of the 12 million people who passed through its doors between 1892 and 1954, only around 2 percent were deemed unfit to become citizens of the United States.”

The facts are what they are A.S., and you cannot sidestep them.



You are correct as previously pointed out!

See: Cashing in: Illegal immigrants get $1,261 more welfare than American families, $5,692 vs. $4,431

”Illegal immigrant households receive an average of $5,692 in federal welfare benefits every year, far more than the average "native" American household, at $4,431, according to a new report on the cost of immigration released Monday.”

I’m still waiting for A.S. to tell us if he will finance the economic needs of all the poverty stricken, poorly educated, low and unskilled foreigners he wants to import into the country ___ at least for a five year period.



You just sidestepped it again John.

You have been premising from the start, that banning immigrants who are poor & unskilled is a useful restriction.

You say this in complete defiance of the fact that Poor & Unskilled defines the vast majority of immigration America has received in every age to include now.

In Every age, most of our immigrants were poor & unskilled. You have acknowledged this John.

Yet, your point is, not that we should test for unproductive habits, not that we should look into their personal histories to find behavioral problems, not that we should scrutinize credit history to find if they are debtors looking for asylum.

But simply that we should ban them, for being Poor & Unskilled. That those things, in of themselves, should result in you being banned from coming here.

That is the category I question. That is what we did not have in the past.

Between 1890 and 1920, 20-25 million immigrants came here. They were Poor and Unskilled. We did not ban people for being Poor & Unskilled.

We tested for personal defects, we did not ban them for being Poor & Unskilled.

That’s the difference, you want to ban people for circumstance. Not their personal qualities, but their lack of wealth, and lack of training.

It’s not the same John. It was never the same. Even poor people can be productive, that’s why you don’t ban them for being poor. Unskilled can become skilled, that’s why you don’t ban them either.

These are temporary states that people can fix. That’s why we didn’t ban people for them.

Because in the early 20th century, we acknowledged human potential, and that liberty is something that gives people the ability to bring it forth.



The fact is, if they were poor and had no visible means of support, such as a sponsor, and the likelyhood was they would become a public burden, they were refused entry. The only reason my dad was allowed in was because he had a sponsor, a place to live and a job and was not likely to become a public burden.

I’m still waiting for you to tell us if you will finance the economic needs of all the poverty stricken, poorly educated, low and unskilled foreigners you want to import into the country ___ at least for a five year period.



Once again, Early 20th century, we took that gamble, and the gamble won out. Liberty is worth it.

Most did not have sponsors, no one vouched for them, they vouched for themselves.

We did not punish people for being poor & unskilled. We punished negative qualities, or sickness (temporarily), but we did not punish circumstance. We assumed ( and we were right!) that most would find their way past it.

The evidence of how different each of these approaches are is in the result; 2% rejection, vs the 70% rejection today. The difference is a qualitative criteria vs a categorical criteria.

The former is something the economy can bear, and still manages to affirm liberty. The latter is something the economy rejects, and is itself a rejection of liberty.

Humans are either meant to be free, or they aren’t. America as an experiment was created to allow people the greatest degree of freedom possible, and to navigate the strains it would create, affirming that liberty is worth it.

Either we are a boiler plate where anyone can come, and grow themselves under their own power, or the American experiment is over with.


How funny, AS. YOU claim that we have no understanding of how the economy works or what labor is required and then proceed to tell us exact that…that YOU somehow know what labor is required and where. That’s pretty silly on its face.
I’m 75 years old and my days of productive work are probably over, other than volunteer work or writing a book which describes what I believe grass-roots conservatism is all about and where it comes from. I intend to leave the book to my kids and not try to get it published myself. One thing it will NOT contain, you can be certain, is the silly idea that we can “improve” the country by importing ignorant, unskilled folks from alien cultures who have NO INTENTION of assimilating as Americans and would kill their own children if they ever showed signs of doing so.
To discover whether or not this is happening today, look at the MILLIONS of Mexican “immigrants”, some of whom are 3rd generation “immigrants,” who proudly fly the Mexican flag from their windows and porches in lieu of flying the American flag. Look at the hundreds–if not thousands–of Muslim children subjected to female genital mutilation or “honor killings” right here in the good ol’ USofA.


You just talked as if we have one, unified labor market. You made that mistake.

Even if doesn’t invalidate you on economics, it makes anything you’ve said here less believable.

The easiest way to prove this position of yours was wrong? Neither States nor cities have a uniform Unemployment rate. They all differ. Alaska’s rate is different from Texas. Denver’s is different from L.A.

Different unemployment rates, different labor markets.

I’m sure you knew this, but you didn’t take it into account in your thinking on immigration at all.

Which is the very argument of the Eugenicists.

They claimed to be culture warriors as well; forgetting that their own culture was a fusion of the immigrants who came before them.

We Catholics have been singled out repeatedly in this very manner. No way we could be proper Americans, we’re too different, too papist, you can never be sure of where our Loyalties lie.

In the 1850s, the anti-foreign and antiCatholic
American Party (aka the Know-Nothing Party) reached its climax
through populist condemnations of politicians and calls for national unity,
spiced with the many-faceted accusations leveled at Catholics…

Protective Association (APA), a popular anti-Catholic group, rose to its
height in 1893–1894.28 There were, however, new elements in the debate as
well: unlike their earlier counterparts, the nativists in this era were beginning
to voice intensive demands for actual restriction of the total immigration.
By 1895, over 100 nativist journals were being published in cities from
Washington D.C. to Minneapolis to San Francisco; these journals accused

the immigrant of taking jobs from Americans, bowing to Rome, and disrupting
the life of the nation in general by his immoral and drunken ways.
The spread of this “immigration disease,” the journals said, could only be
stopped by stopping immigration.2

Here in Colorado, the Governor we had in the 1930s lead raids against schools and passed around cigars celebrating his cause to get rid of us.

The truth is, you’re a repeat of history Dave. You’re apart of the same nativist trend America has seen time & again.

It continually crops up, it always undermines American values, and it always scapegoats minorities like Jews and Catholics.

NOPE. No friend of mine.


Where did I say anything about Catholics? My own paternal grandmother was a life-long Catholic. I was an Episcopalian for years–until I realized that the American Episcopal Church was embracing “progressivism” whole-heartedly, as the current Pope appears to be doing today.
That has nothing to do with what we’ve been discussing. Times are, in fact, DIFFERENT today than they were in the late 19th and early 20th Centuries–economically, socially and POLITICALLY. We didn’t have to worry back then about allowing a group of people into the country whose ideology from birth was to kill anyone who doesn’t adopt their religion. We didn’t have to worry back then about millions of diseased, impoverished people sneaking across our borders in order to get on the dole, either.


When you repeated ad naseum the same rheotirc Anti-Catholic idiots did.

Too alien, won’t assimilate, keep them out.

Same old tune, same old place.

What that should tell you DAVE, is that assimilation doesn’t work the way you think it does.

Assimilation happens via Convergence ; NOT Immigrants adopting our culture wholesale, but adopting those practices that allow them to access the Middle Class, while bringing along traits of their own that don’t interfere with that process.

Indians hold onto to their faiths and their cultural practices in their food and the holidays they celebrate; Are they unassimilated?

The answer is Yes and No.

The Chinese immigrants who built Chinatown, held onto their food, their health practices, and even portions of their language.

Are they unassimiliated?

The answer is Yes and No.

You purport a wrong image of assimilation Dave, you should re-examine American history, and learn how it really worked, not how you were told to romanticize it.


If unregulated and unlimited immigration combined with the Welfare State that enables these migrants to work for a fraction of the cost of living were a prescription for prosperity and growth, then California would be the shining example for this ridiculous fairy tale.

We have the highest poverty rate in the nation, we have countless jobs at every skill level unfilled because the subsidized labor force has driven wages to one third of the cost of living, we are taxing in place of wages to provide the subsidies so there is no way for businesses to compete if they raise wages enough to support unsubsidized labor AND pay the taxes for the subsidized labor, businesses which can flee and those that cannot are starved for workers and bankrupt in tax burden.

And of course we have an insurmountable percentage of voters who vote for the Extreme Left because without Welfare most would starve.

The Left have their dream immigration policies in place right here, as a result; California is the illegal immigrant capital of the world.

If the cheerleaders for open borders before Welfare reform get their way the whole nation will follow California’s lead.


And yet, Immigrants are leaving California for somewhere else:

You don’t seem to have an answer for this RET. But I do.

Even welfare, doesn’t overcome the cost of living. As expected.

You may see exceptions in your daily life, but the trend is that immigrants (and other poor peple) are leaving, and the only people moving to California, are rich, white, affluent types.

This is according to the State’s own statistics on the matter. Considering how much you west-coast liberals hate white people, I don’t see why they’d lie about this. It makes all of California seem aloof and intolerant of all the poor brownish people they say need Affirmative Action.

Regardless; the Market has recognized California’s dysfunction, and is re-routing labor to other places. Markets work, Government policy fails.

Once again, just as expected. Markets are smarter than would-be planners.


The fact is, if they were poor and had no visible means of support, such as a sponsor, and the likelyhood was they would become a public burden, they were refused entry. The only reason my dad was allowed in was because he had a sponsor, a place to live and a job and was not likely to become a public burden.

I’m still waiting for you to tell us if you will finance the economic needs of all the poverty stricken, poorly educated, low and unskilled foreigners you want to import into the country ___ at least for a five year period.


Once again, when you are ready to address the specifics I posted, get back to me. Your adolescent deflections, obfuscations and switching of the subject is not appreciated.



That fairy tale is responsible for California’s pensions being underfunded by $ 1 TRILLION. A good portion of money which could have been put into the pension funds was used to pay for the economic costs of unregulated immigration, i.e., the economic consequences of importing the poverty stricken populations of other countries.


There was a time not too long ago in New York when the able-bodied were ashamed to accept home relief, a program created by Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1931 when he was Governor. Now, New York City and many other major cities are infested with countless government cheese factions, including recent immigrants, who not only demand welfare, but use it to buy beer, wine, drugs, sex, and Lotto tickets.


I already addressed them.

Banning the sick or demented is a qualitative restriction, banning the Poor & unskilled is a categorical restriction.

This is not the same thing. The Hoover Institute makes the same distinction.

Your issue, is that the early 20th century was qualitative immigration restriction only, and allowed in 98% of immigrants who came in, the vast majority who were poor & unskilled.

I’ve asked you again, and again, and again, how did this work? That was the first question I asked you that spawn this discussion.

You still don’t have an answer, do you John?

Because you don’t understand how labor markets work. You don’t know how labor is allocated, so you don’t understand how those 25 million poor & unskilled immigrants were possibly absorbed.

You basically treat it all as witchcraft that can’t be repeated. Like a Liberal looking at evidence of the Laffer Curve.


How many Indians or Chinese do you see marching to protest the US and its policies? How many of them do you see waving the Indian or Chinese flag as they march in lieu of the American flag? How many Indian- or Chinese-Americans do you even KNOW? As a side-light, two of my parents’ closest friends immediately after WW II were Japanese-Americans. We used to visit them (and they, us) regularly for years where their son Craig and I would play together while the adults talked and played penny-ante poker or spades. We drifted apart when they moved north and my family moved south of Indianapolis. Craig and his mother Frances attended my aunt’s funeral in 1999, which is the last time I saw them.